From owner-freebsd-commit  Tue Jan  2 09:51:51 1996
Return-Path: owner-commit
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id JAA00446
          for freebsd-commit-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 09:51:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id JAA00421
          for cvs-all-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 09:51:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id JAA00408
          for cvs-ports-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 09:51:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cls.net (freeside.cls.de [192.129.50.1])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA00399
          Tue, 2 Jan 1996 09:51:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail.cls.net (Smail3.1.29.1)
	  from allegro.lemis.de (192.109.197.134) with smtp
	  id <m0tXArt-0011kiC@cls.net>; Tue, 2 Jan 96 17:51 GMT
From: grog@lemis.de (Greg Lehey)
Organisation: LEMIS, Schellnhausen 2, 36325 Feldatal, Germany
Phone: +49-6637-919123
Fax:   +49-6637-919122
Reply-To: grog@lemis.de (Greg Lehey)
Received: (grog@localhost) by allegro.lemis.de (8.6.9/8.6.9) 
	id SAA00561; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 18:27:54 +0100
Message-Id: <199601021727.SAA00561@allegro.lemis.de>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/benchmarks/bytebench - Imported sources
To: se@freefall.freebsd.org (Stefan Esser)
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 18:27:53 +0100 (MET)
Cc: CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-ports@freefall.freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199601012257.OAA14656@freefall.freebsd.org> from "Stefan Esser" at Jan 1, 96 02:57:37 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-commit@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

Stefan Esser writes:
> 
> se          96/01/01 14:57:37
> 
>   Branch:      benchmarks/bytebench  1.1.1
>   Log:
>   The BYTE benchmark suite, very popular under Linux users as it seems.
>   (See: http://www.silkroad.com/bass/linux/bm.html for results ...)
>   
>   This is another benchmark that tries to give a single performance
>   number, but without giving much thought to proper weighting of the
>   performance numbers. So: Please handle with care ...

Is this this nonsense that iX publishes?  Do we really want it?  It's
one of the most meaningless benchmarks I've ever seen (along with all
the others that iX publishes).

Greg